Thursday, January 22, 2015

Former New Mexico Sheriff Gets Ten Years For Rights Violations

Just from reading this one article about this guy and his history they are reporting should give you an idea of just how far out of line you have to get as a cop before they do anything serious about it.

Former New Mexico sheriff to serve 10 years for rights violations

 

By Joseph Kolb
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (Reuters) - A former New Mexico sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison by a federal court on Wednesday after he was found guilty of violating a motorist's civil rights last year when he dragged the man from his car and threatened him with a gun.
Tommy Rodella, 53, was sheriff of Rio Arriba County but was in plainclothes and brandishing a pistol when he and his son confronted the motorist in March 2014. When the victim asked to see some identification, prosecutors said, Rodella slammed his sheriff's badge into the man's face.

Snip

Rodella's controversial career spanned almost three decades. The Albuquerque Journal said that as a state police officer in the 1980s he was disciplined for marijuana use, physical abuse and improper use of a weapon. In 1993 he allegedly shot at a deer decoy set up by state game wardens to catch poachers.
In 2008 the New Mexico Supreme Court fired him from his post as a magistrate court judge in Rio Arriba County for "willful misconduct" after he involved himself in a friend's drunken driving case, and also promised to rule in favor of campaign supporters if they faced any litigation in his court.
 Then we have this hilarious little comment from the US Attorney;

"When he attacked a defenseless innocent civilian, Sheriff Rodella chose to abuse his power rather than uphold his oath to protect the public," Damon Martinez, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico, said in a statement.

He said the Justice Department will "vigorously" prosecute any officer who crosses the line, because they discredit their colleagues and weaken public trust in law enforcement.


My bold.

Yeah, right.

I'm thinking maybe this guy has never heard of a place called Albuquerque?


 




5 comments:

  1. The Albuquerque Journal said that as a state police officer in the 1980s he was disciplined for marijuana use

    That was a felony, back in the day

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fuck all PIGS. Andy and Barney they are no longer, just a bunch of jack booted thugs. I wouldn't piss in a PIG's ear if their head was on fire.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unfortunately there's a need for cops. The city of San Jose CA sort of proved that. They went from a police force of 2,500 cops to a police force of around 1100 effective cops (there's 400 others who are on desk duty or disabled duty who can't do cop stuff but can't be fired because of union bullshit). In response the police force quit responding to anything except rape and murder calls. Wanna steal a car? It's open season in San Jose. Wanna break into a house and steal shit? It's open season in San Jose. Want to take some insulated bolt cutters and steal all the wires out of light poles and traffic light pedestals to take to recyclers? Go for it. Hell, even steal the whole goddamn pole and cut it up and haul it to the recyclers. It ain't rape or murder, so if you call 911 about it, they'll just tell you to go onto the city web site and file a web report, which nobody will ever investigate. As a result San Jose went from being the safest big city in the nation to being something akin to the Wild West, where the streets are dark because all the wires have been stolen and intersections are chaos because the traffic lights are dead.

    That said, while San Jose proves we needs cops, clearly we don't need these cops, the kinda cops who are just thugs with a badge. We need Andy and Barney back. Badly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ah, but that's San Jose, a leftist city on the Left Coast. The citizens have been disarmed, and the police are at least as likely to go after the victim as the criminal. Do that where the citizens are armed, and the crime rate will briefly go up, then drop like a rock as the criminals realize that no police means open season on Them. That's what happened in Albuquerque in 1975.
    Everyone brought their guns out, and crime took a holiday along with the police strike.

    ReplyDelete
  5. San Jose isn't leftist, Tweell. San Jose is a place where the worship of money is the be all and end all, and a surprisingly large percentage of the population is Libertarian, complete with mandatory guns and all. Look up some dude named Eric S. Raymond for an example of a typical San Jose resident. Heck, I'm next door to San Jose and I have more guns than the typical American household. Flyover country stereotypes of California are about as accurate as California stereotypes of flyover country -- reality is a bit more complex than that.

    But anyhow, all those guns don't do shit if you're asleep when your car gets jacked. Same deal if you're at work when your house gets cleaned out. Violent crime didn't increase in San Jose -- the cops are still on the lookout there, and while not as dangerous as in New Mexico, you're still way too likely to be looking at the wrong end of a gun if you break into an occupied home, burglars are careful to politely knock on the door and pretend to be handing out religious tracts if there's anybody home (they only break in if nobody answers). So armed robberies aren't up either. But car thefts and burglaries of unoccupied homes are rampant, and without police on the job, there doesn't seem much that people who can't afford private security guards can do.

    ReplyDelete

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, some peoples stink more than others too. Remember, I can make your opinion disappear, you keep the stink.

Fair Use Notice

Fair Use Statement: This site may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not have been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: “http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml” If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.